NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte

Summary

---

Amanpour – "NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte"

Podcast: Amanpour (CNN Podcasts)
Date: September 25, 2025
Host: Christiane Amanpour

---

Overview

This episode brings together critical global voices amid rising geopolitical tensions. As the UN General Assembly convenes in New York, Christiane Amanpour speaks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, German Foreign Minister Johann Vaderfull, and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. The discussion centers on NATO’s response to Russian aggression, support for Ukraine, the evolving conflict in Gaza, European unity, debates over Palestinian statehood, the shifting American political landscape under President Trump, and the implications of politicization within the US Justice Department.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. NATO, Ukraine, and Russian Aggression (Mark Rutte, 02:00–12:35)

• Ukrainian Resilience & Military Support

  • President Zelensky emphasized that "not international law, not cooperation, but weapons decides who to survive."
    • Rutte: "He's right on the weapons because he needs the weapons." (02:28)
  • US resumed supplying weapons to Ukraine in July, now financed by NATO allies. Europe is "stepping up" by taking on more of the financial burden (03:00).

• Security Guarantees for Ukraine

  • European nations (France, UK) are collaborating on security guarantees for Ukraine. The US has joined this conversation, but such measures can only follow a ceasefire or peace deal (03:33).

• President Trump's Approach to Russia

  • Trump is taking a "harder line" on Russia, calling it a "paper tiger," which Rutte believes hit a nerve in the Kremlin:
    • "When you see a bear, you know you see a bear... but it means that Russia is insecure." (04:23)
  • Rutte details Russia's mounting losses and supply problems, asserting, "Putin is not in a good place," and Trump is leveraging this to pressure Russia to negotiate (04:23–05:31).

• NATO's Red Lines & Airspace Defense

  • Rutte reiterates NATO’s long-standing doctrine to defend every inch of alliance airspace:
    • "We have the best military in the world. We are the strongest military alliance in world history." (09:42)
  • On Russian jets entering NATO airspace: military commanders have full authority to take "the ultimate decision" (i.e., shoot down aircraft) if there is a direct threat, but standard procedure is assessing and escorting out intruders (08:41–11:54).

• Recent Airspace Incidents

  • Dutch F35s handled drone incursions, and a recent Estonian airspace incident was managed within 12 minutes with multinational NATO response. Rutte downplays notions of divisions within NATO, stressing unity and adherence to procedure (10:00–11:54).
  • Possible Russian drone incursion into Denmark is being assessed; Rutte acknowledges concern but has confidence in NATO/Danish readiness (12:04–12:26).

Notable Quotes:

• Rutte: "President Trump hit it exactly as he should have by saying, mentioning the paper tiger... able to hit a nerve probably at the highest echelons of the Kremlin." (04:23)
• Rutte: "We have the best military in the world. We are the strongest military alliance in world history." (09:42)
• Rutte on escalation: "If there is a direct threat, they might ultimately do the ultimate thing... shoot them down, if necessary." (09:23)

---

2. Germany on Ukraine, Sanctions, and the Far Right (Johann Vaderfull, 13:53–23:22)

• German Support for Ukraine

  • Germany welcomes the US President’s firmer stance supporting Ukraine's fight to reclaim its territory, viewing strong Western unity as essential (14:16; 15:48).
  • Europe is financially and militarily capable of sustaining support to Ukraine, even with new schemes where US weapons are funneled via NATO allies for purchase (15:25–15:48).

• On Russian Assets and Reparations

  • Germany argues Russia "has to pay for that aggression," discussing the legality and feasibility of using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Vaderfull clarifies that current schemes use windfall profits, not outright seizure, but stresses reparations must eventually be paid (18:15–19:27).

• Palestinian Statehood

  • Germany remains committed to a two-state solution, emphasizing negotiations over recognition at this stage. Calls for Palestinian Authority reform and buy-in from both parties (20:07).

• Rise of the Far Right & US/Germany Relations

  • Regarding US engagement with far-right AfD politicians, Vaderfull warns:
    • "Some of them do really deny what the 12 years of Nazi regime really meant for Germany... This is not the common ground we have between our countries." (22:16)

Notable Quotes:

• Vaderfull: "Russia has to pay for that aggression. They started this war. They destroyed a lot of territory of Ukraine." (18:15)
• On the AfD: "It is absolutely impossible to be in a coalition with this party. We are doing everything to prevent them from becoming a governing party in Germany." (22:16)

---

3. Spain’s Stance on Palestine, Migration, and NATO (Pedro Sanchez, 24:07–36:40)

• Recognition of Palestinian Statehood

  • Spain led among Western states in recognizing Palestine, citing both humanitarian and political imperatives:
    • "There's a must from politicians to give a political horizon to this crisis. And that means, in my view, that we need to recognize internationally the state of Palestine." (24:22; 24:50)
  • Proposes a global peace conference and argues for dual recognition: Palestine by the world, Israel by Arab states (25:03).

• Israel/Gaza and Counter-Terrorism Perspective

  • Sanchez draws on Spain’s history with terrorism to argue that Israel’s “war” posture is counterproductive without parallel political engagement.
    • "When you fight against terrorism, you have to do it within the legal framework. And this is not happening when it comes to Israel..." (25:03–27:52)
  • Responds to accusations of rewarding Hamas: "What we are doing is strengthening also the moderates within Palestine society..." (28:00)

• Addressing Migration and Far-Right Critiques

  • Cites Spain’s economic success with migration:
    • "During the last seven years in Spain, we received 2 million migrants. And at the same time... we've reduced the unemployment rate by 40%..." (29:53–31:13)
  • Emphasizes need for regular migration to address Europe’s demographic challenges and maintain the welfare state (31:41).

• On NATO Spending

  • Counters Trump's demand for a 5% of GDP target with focus on capability over raw spending figures, noting Spain’s significant increase in defense investment since 2018 (32:54–33:43).

• Spanish Engagement in Gaza

  • Spain and Italy are sending military assets to protect a humanitarian flotilla heading to Gaza, but Sanchez clarifies their role is "just to rescue" if attacked, not to become part of a military confrontation (35:49–36:40).

Notable Quotes:

• Sanchez: "We need to recognize internationally the state of Palestine." (24:50)
• Sanchez: "We are representing more or less 30% of the total economic growth of the European Union... also thank you, of, you know, this contribution of regular migration." (29:53)
• Sanchez on Israel: "What Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing is the opposite, is creating more unstable Middle east political situation." (34:01)

---

4. Weaponizing the DOJ & American Democracy (Brendan Ballou with Michelle Martin, 37:34–51:35)

• Politicization of the US Justice Department

  • DOJ’s independence is eroding; appointments and prosecutions increasingly appear politically motivated:
    • "The only thing the Justice Department has is its credibility. And to see so many attacks on that credibility so quickly, it's extraordinary." (38:03)
  • Notable shift as DOJ no longer actively pursues crimes like foreign bribery or acting as a foreign agent (40:09).

• Presidential Pressure for Political Prosecutions

  • President Trump’s public calls for prosecution of specific opponents are called "entirely unprecedented":
    • "I've certainly never heard of it... to see the President explicitly try to use the Justice Department as a weapon against his political foes..." (42:07)
  • These public statements complicate actual prosecutions, providing defense attorneys with evidence of political intent (43:08).

• High-Level Resignations and Corruption

  • Mass exodus at DOJ, notably in the Public Integrity Section, signals that "certain crimes" are now beyond legal reach; only two attorneys remain in that unit (44:48).

• “A Great Time to Be a Rich Criminal”

  • The administration is not prosecuting cases like Russian oligarchs or foreign bribery:
    • "...if you are a rich criminal in America, it is a fabulous time to be working right now." (46:07)

• Public Impact and Civic Duty

  • Ballou urges that erosion of DOJ affects all: "Due process and civil rights either apply to everyone or they apply to no one." (48:07)
  • Despite discouragement, Ballou holds some optimism: large-scale corruption is harder to ignore, and this might prompt public and legal pushback (47:59, 49:47).

Notable Quotes:

• Ballou: "It is a great time to be a rich criminal in America." (46:07)
• Ballou: "If DOJ is not interested in prosecuting crypto scammers... consumers who are harmed by that behavior can sue in state and federal court to try to get justice." (49:47)

---

5. Final Reflections: Science, Climate, and Optimism (Bill Nye, 52:18–52:46)

• Bill Nye, recently honored on the Walk of Fame, highlighted the importance of global collaboration on climate, energy, and internet access:
  • "There are three things we want for everybody in the world: clean water, renewably produced and reliable electricity, and access to the Internet. If we can provide that... we will be addressing climate change and preserving the quality of life for everyone on Earth." (52:18–52:46)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Time (MM:SS) | Segment Description | |--------------|------------------------------------------------------| | 02:00–12:35 | NATO Secretary General Rutte on Russia, Ukraine, NATO | | 13:53–23:22 | Germany’s Foreign Minister on Ukraine, Gaza, Far Right| | 24:07–36:40 | Spain’s PM Sanchez: Palestine, migration, NATO | | 37:34–51:35 | DOJ politicization: Ballou/Martin interview | | 52:18–52:46 | Bill Nye on climate, global cooperation |

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• Rutte on Russia:
  "President Trump hit it exactly as he should have... mentioning the paper tiger... able to hit a nerve probably at the highest echelons of the Kremlin." (04:23)
• Vaderfull on frozen Russian assets:
  "Of course Russia has to pay for that aggression... the aggressor accountable for what they did." (18:15)
• Sanchez on migration:
  "During the last seven years... we received 2 million migrants. And at the same time, we have reduced the unemployment rate by 40%." (29:53)
• Ballou on the DOJ:
  "The only thing the Justice Department has is its credibility. And to see so many attacks on that credibility so quickly, it's extraordinary." (38:03)
• Nye on climate needs:
  "We want clean water, renewably produced and reliable electricity and access to the Internet. If we can provide that... we will be addressing climate change." (52:18)

---

Summary

This episode captures a rapidly changing and tense international moment: NATO’s steely stance against Russian provocations; European leaders’ push for action and unity on Ukraine, sanctions, and the Middle East; and stark warnings about American democracy’s health amid rising political interference in law enforcement. Across topics—from war and strategy to migration and climate—the guests stress two recurring themes: the indispensability of collective action, and the threats posed by division, both abroad and at home.

Transcript

[A]

Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour.

[B]

Here's what's coming up.

[A]

War and suffering. Ukraine and Gaza take center stage at the UN Trump finally backs Ukraine and calls Russia a paper tiger. But amid repeated incursions into NATO airspace, how should they respond? I asked NATO Secretary General Mark Rutter and and Germany's foreign minister. Then Palestine's plea to the UN The Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez tells me why allies must take action to end Israel's war on Gaza, plus weaponizing the doj. As Trump goes after his political opponents, what this means for the rule of law and democracy in America. Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York. As world leaders meet at the United nations this week, the people of Ukraine are terrorized, many of them now living under constant Russian bombardment. Meanwhile, Putin continues to provoke NATO allies with repeated incursions by drones and jets into NATO airspace. Two of Denmark's airports were forced to close this week because of suspected Russian drones. It is an increasingly serious situation and so a significant change in tone by President Trump may have been welcome. He now says Ukraine can win the war with European and NATO help, while he's also taking a harder line with Russia. But nothing seems to bring Putin to the negotiating table yet. So what can NATO do? I asked Secretary General Mark Rutte when he joined me just outside UN Headquarters and little earlier.

[B]

Secretary General, welcome back to the program.

[C]

Thank you for having me.

[B]

It's been quite a NATO focused general assembly with all sorts of speeches and commentaries around the edges about directly. So President Zelensky of Ukraine said the following. No, not international law, not cooperation, but weapons decides who to survive. And he said that even being part of the long standing military alliance doesn't automatically mean you are safe. So is that a direct shot across NATO's bow?

[C]

No, I don't think so. And of course he's right on the weapons because he needs the weapons. The good news is that the US since mid July is supplying the weapons again paid for by allies. The president decided to open the floodgates again, both lethal and non lethal weapons into Ukraine, which is extremely important for the Ukrainians and it helps them to stay strong in the fight and they're exceptionally successful.

[B]

And this business about you all have to paying for American weapons which used to go from their budget, how stressful is that for NATO's budget and various governments budgets?

[C]

Well, of course they have to make sure that the money is there. But I think it is logical Europe is stepping up. Europe was stepping up at the NATO summit with 5% spending commitments. Now Europe is spending up, stepping up, saying, hey, listen, it's only logical that we pay for these weapons, but it is important that the US Is supplying them because otherwise Ukraine could not survive. These are crucial deliveries.

[B]

In your conversations about a potential, you know, day after, are there any developments in terms of security guarantees for Ukraine, including from the United States?

[C]

Well, let's first of all pray and hope that the day after is there as soon as possible. And I know that President Trump is working day and night to achieve that moment and to get there. The Europeans, under leadership of the French and the British, came together organizing these security guarantees. The US has now said we want to get involved. So that debate is now taking place. But of course, all of this can only be implemented post a long term cease fire or a full peace deal.

[B]

So you say the President is working day and night on it. Even at the podium, he admitted that he thought that it would be one of the more easy conflicts to solve because of his relationship with Vladimir Putin. And he's basically announced to the world and to Putin that it's definitely not going as he wished and that Putin is, well, stringing him along, essentially. What is the hope, do you think, for Putin to understand that it's time to agree to a ceasefire, to negotiate an end?

[C]

Well, I think President Trump hit it exactly as he should have by saying, mentioning the paper tiger, and then the Russians coming back yesterday, the whole day saying, no, we are not a paper tiger, we are a bear. Hey, when you see a bear, you know you see a bear. Right, but that's the posture. Yeah, but it means that Russia is insecure and that President Trump was able to hit a nerve probably at the highest echelons of the Kremlin. And why is this? Because if I was a student of history, as I am, and Putin is also a student of history and he loves his country and he's proud of that history, I would not be in a good place. He's lost 1 million people now or seriously wounded in this war. He is now losing in one month what the Soviets lost in 10 years in Afghanistan only in one month. So this is what's happening at the moment. And he is not making the progress he wants. He is, he has these long lines waiting for the gasoline stations to fill up the cars with gasoline because the Ukrainians are successful in hitting the oil refineries in Russia. So he is not in a good place. And I think President Trump feels that. And he's putting pressure on Putin. Come to the Table.

[B]

Just a quick thing, because he's not in a good place. But you remember in the Oval Office, Trump had told Ukraine that you're not in a good place.

[A]

You have no cards.

[B]

Now he's saying that, actually, I think with NATO help that you can win back all your territory. How did you analyze what that meant? Is the aim now to help Zelensky and Ukraine enough to win back things, even like Crimea, the Donbass?

[C]

Well, I think what we have here is a president really trying to get Putin to the table. And so far, Putin has not played ball. Yeah. And he wants them to play ball and come there and make compromises and end this terrible war. And there will also be discussions on very sensitive issues, including territory. And both President Trump, myself, we all agree it's up to President Zelensky to discuss territory and make the necessary deals when that moment comes. But at the moment, of course, the problem is that Putin is not there. And therefore, the 5% spending commitments, this weapons delivery from the US into Ukraine paid for their allies. But also the discussion now between the EU and the US on more sanctions on Russia is extremely helpful to put that pressure on Putin and get him there.

[B]

Do you think that'll happen? Because President Trump has said that that's available, but he keeps having these rolling deadlines. Do you think finally he will put those sanctions on?

[C]

He already did. We have seen. Not the big ones, the big one on India.

[B]

Yes, but I'm talking about on Russia.

[C]

Yeah, but this immediately impacts Russia because that means that Delhi is now on the phone with Vladimir. Vladimir, with Putin in Moscow and Ren Ramody asking me, hey, I support you, but again, could you explain to me the strategy? Because I have now been hit by these 50% tariffs by the United States. So President Trump is implementing what he says, but of course, we are not happy that so far we have not been able collectively to end the war. But. And he is working on that.

[B]

And what do you make? Because he talked about NATO nations, I think he said, I'll put those on, but you also have to stop buying Russian energy. So there's Turkey, Hungary. Yes, Slovakia. What are you telling those nations?

[C]

But there are two issues. One is that a couple of these nations still buy Russian oil. And I agree with President Trump, they should stop. And I know that the European Commission president is working on this. I know that President Trump personally is working on this, including directly with Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary. Then a second issue is that Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, is Very proactively engaging with Scott Besant with the White House on seeing what can we do, for example, with China, to make sure that we put more pressure on China, also through sanctions. Whatever we can do collectively. Not easy, but we can get there.

[B]

Can you tell me you mentioned President Commission President Ursula von der Lent yesterday here on this space, she told me that shooting down Russian jets that come into NATO airspace and don't heed warnings to leave is now on the. President Trump in public said that he would agree with NATO. Shooting down Russian jets and flying objects that enter NATO space. That matches NATO's original mantra, which was not one inch. We will defend every inch and every centimeter of our territory in our airspace. Where do you stand on that?

[C]

Well, this is what we are doing over 50 years now.

[B]

No, but now.

[C]

Now is no different from 50 years ago. So when the Soviet Union was there and with the Russians. If there are airspace incursions, ultimately you can take the toughest decision. If necessary, if your people are threatened, if not, you will escort these planes out of your area.

[B]

And if they don't, because they haven't heeded warnings and you heard the polls.

[C]

Yeah, but this is not new. Our military, our military commanders, our fighter jets, pilots, they can do what is necessary to keep our people safe. If it is, if there is no direct threat, they will escort these planes out of allied airspace. If there is a direct threat, they might ultimately do the ultimate thing, which.

[B]

Is shoot them down.

[C]

Yeah, if necessary.

[B]

But you remember Turkey did that. You may have been prime minister 10 years ago, Turkey did that when the Soviet bomber came into its airspace. Only for 17 seconds, but hadn't responded to the warnings not to enter, and.

[A]

They shot it down.

[B]

And World War III didn't happen. Do you think that Putin needs one of these lessons?

[C]

What Putin needs is a calm and collected reaction by NATO. It's exactly what we do. We have the best military in the world. We are the strongest military alliance in world history. And what happened with the drone incursions, the Dutch F35s taking them down with the incursion in estonia last Friday?

[B]

12 minutes.

[C]

12 minutes. The Swedish, the Finnish and the Italian allies escorting these planes out of Estonian airspace. This is exactly what we need to do. And then they assess. And if in that assessment they would come to the conclusion that these planes are a direct threat, they can move up in the escalation ladder. But this is not new. And my advice here is, let's leave this with the military. They are trained to prepare for this. Our supreme Allied Commander?

[B]

Yes. We're hearing from the leaders of these countries, like the Polish Prime Minister, the Polish Foreign Minister. But he's.

[C]

What they are saying is right, that if necessary, of course, our military people can do what is necessary.

[B]

So how do you assess then, especially after Trump's statement on this, the top US General, the Sakur.

[C]

Yes. Alexis Renkovich. He's the supreme all of the.

[B]

Exactly. He said, fine. Hitting a drone, getting it out, fine. But a manned aircraft could trigger, quote, a higher risk of escalation if someone gets killed on either side. So again, you know, Turkey did it. There was no higher escalation. World War Three didn't break out. This kind of open division between NATO.

[C]

I saw this at CNA yesterday, but I disagree with the CNN analysis yesterday. There is no open division because in NATO, we all agree that it's our military doing this. They are the best we have. What they did in Estonia is exactly what they have trained and prepared for to do, which is to engage these aircrafts, make contact, and if necessary, they can move up and do the ultimate thing. But it is not that. When an aircraft enters your airspace, you immediately always take the ultimate decision because you will always assess the threat at that moment. And this is exactly what happened in Estonia. It has happened so many times before. Under the Soviet days, it happened. And the Americans, the Canadians, the European allies, we all have trained to prepare for this. So there is no division on this. And I agree with what Tusk has been saying, what the President said, what the Polish foreign Minister said. Ultimately, yes, of course.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Our military have the authority to do what is necessary.

[B]

What is your assessment of what happened? Incursion into Danish airspace. We're still waiting for an answer.

[A]

What is it?

[C]

It looks very serious. I was on the phone this morning with the Danish Prime Minister. NATO and the Danish military are also now in close contact. She is also reaching out to individual allies. But still it is unclear at this moment what is behind this. Who is behind it? What is behind it? What was the intention? Still not known. So we are all assessing that.

[B]

Does that worry you?

[C]

Of course I'm worried. On the other hand, I know that we have the best people in place. So my worries are always very short lived.

[B]

Thank you, Secretary General.

[C]

Thank you so much.

[A]

And up next, Germany's foreign minister reacts to Trump's constantly shifting positions on Ukraine. And the Spanish prime minister tells me why his country led the way on recognizing Palestinian statehood.

[D]

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.

[E]

I'm worried about this generation in face to face communication because it's not an.

[F]

Easy thing to do.

[D]

Susan Greenfield is the author behind Mind How Digital Technologies Are Leaving Their Mark on Our Brains. We discuss outsourcing our lives to digital devices and how that impacts our human connections. Listen to Chasing Life Streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[A]

Not at war, but no longer at complete peace. Those are the words of Germany's defense minister. He also said NATO countries are under hybrid attack by Russia in disinformation campaigns and now also by drones. So let's speak to his colleague, the country's foreign minister, Johann Vaderfull. He is at the United Nations. And welcome to our program.

[B]

So could I just first ask you.

[A]

What is your reaction and Germany's reaction to. To what appears to, well, what is a shift in President Trump's view of the balance between the Russian and Ukraine positions? He's now saying Ukraine could win back its territory with the right support. What did you think of that?

[G]

Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. We very much value the new position of the American president staying alongside with Ukraine and us, the European partners of Ukraine, in opposing clearly the Russian position. President Trump has invested a lot of time and efforts to bring Putin to the negotiation table, but Putin refuses to attend there. So I think we are in a stage where President Trump is losing his power and that should make Putin clear that he has to change his mind and to be ready for negotiations. So there's a clear position. Ukraine, together with the European partners and the United States are backing Ukraine, are fighting for freedom and are opposing Russia, which is violating international law. And that is a good precondition to end this war.

[A]

And what do you think, or how do you assess Europe and NATO's capabilities now with the United States not directly sending weapons, but sending them to you to buy, to then pass on to Ukraine? What does that mean for the amount you're able to afford and the speed with which you're able to get them to Ukraine?

[G]

Let me firstly underline the alliance. NATO is closer together than ever before. The Hag summit showed that we together stick to the commitment of Article 5. We are bigger than before Finland and Sweden joined us. So that is absolutely clear that we will really stand together and that we have, of course, the financial, the economic and the military power to support Ukraine in a way so that they can survive and that they really can encounter the Russian aggression. Of course, we would like that the United States States would deliver weapons without purchasing. But on the other hand, the economic power of the European Union is big enough that we were able to finance what Ukraine really needs. So it is absolutely clear we will be with Ukraine as long as necessary and we will deliver to them what is necessary so that they are militarily able to defend them and their territory and perhaps also to reconquer some of this territory. As the President has said.

[A]

Talking about trying to ramp up pressure on Putin to do what you want and that's bring him to a negotiating table. There's been lots of issues about whether there will be U.S. sanctions. There have been secondary sanctions. There's also a bit of a difference between various big European powers such as yourself and France over the hundreds of billions of euro that are, you know, of Russians that are frozen and that some are saying these should go immediately to Ukraine for its defense and its rebuilding. So you basically propose a legally sound plan to tap into that money to support Ukraine while the President of France says any such scheme is a non starter because seizing Russians central bank assets would violate international law. Can you help us through whether this is ever going to happen and do you? Well, what do you think of France's objections?

[G]

The point is that of course Russia has to pay for that aggression. They started this war. They destroyed a lot of territory of Ukraine, Ukraine and we have of course to make the take the aggressor accountable for what they did. The way we are coming to that is not clear per now we are discussing it. We are looking for new options to use the Russian assets. It's not about seizing them, but it's about using them. This is what we are already doing, doing per now in using the windfall profits. And perhaps we should start a new thinking because in the end of the day there will of course be negotiations between the two countries. But it has to be clear, Russia has to pay reparations for what they did in Ukraine. They damaged a lot in that very country. And it's not about us or Ukraine to pay for that.

[A]

Okay, can I move on to the issue of Palestine statehood at the UN this week? That is what was also very dominant. Many of the traditional Israeli allies, G7 nations did recognize Palestine as a state at the UN and they say that it's to help push the diplomatic forward in order to try to really pursue a diplomatic two state solution and an end to this historic conflict. But Germany did not join its European allies or its other allies. Why not? What would it take for Germany to recognize Palestinian statehood?

[G]

Well, Germany is absolutely committed to the two state solution as we always have been. We are also committed to the Oslo process and that requires negotiations between Israel and Palestine to come to a two state solution. This is the only solution for for the both of the nations and the countries to live peacefully and in security and in dignity together. So that is up to absolutely clear for us. This is not the day or the face to recognize the state, but to get the negotiations started. This is a position not only of Germany, but also of Italy, of Japan, of a lot of other countries in the world. But of course it is very timely that these negotiations should begin. This is what we are pledging for in our time talks with Israel, but also with the Palestinian side and of course the pa, the Palestinian Authority has to be reformed. We need a democratic process in that. So there's a lot of work to do and we are all united in the goal to have in the end of the day two states, a Palestinian one and of course the Israeli one, for which Germany of course is in a special way responsible.

[A]

Let me ask you a final question to react to President Trump saying that you're all going to hell if there is continued untrammeled immigration. And clearly immigration is a major hot button issue for many of the far right groups, including in your own country, the AfD.

[B]

Now, I think where was it last.

[A]

Week the members or earlier this month White House welcomed two AfD leaders for a series of meetings. What do you say to your American counterparts for welcoming these people who, as you just mentioned your history, you know, have very polarizing and controversial views?

[G]

Yes, I try to make them aware who the AfD in reality is. They do. Some of them do really deny what the 12 years of Nazi regime really meant for Germany and for us. I'm a Christian Democrat and for I would say most of the other parties in the German parliament, it is absolutely impossible to be in a coalition with this party. We are doing everything to prevent them from becoming a governing party in Germany, in the federal states as well as on the federal level. So I can only ask everybody to look clearly into this party, what they are promising, what they are referring to. And this is not the common ground we have between our countries. These are not the values Americans and Europeans and Germans really share.

[A]

Foreign Minister Johann Vaderful, thank you for joining me. Our wounds are deep and our calamity is great. That was from the Palestinian president as he addressed the UN General assembly today despite being denied a visa to the US by the Trump administration. It's a stark contrast to the flurry of nations that now recognize Palestinian statehood as we were just discussing along with Ireland, Norway. Spain was ahead of the curve recognizing Palestine as a state last year as Israel still lacks a political plan to end the war in Gaza. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez joined me with a perspective on several hot button issues, including immigration, that are not often heard, especially in America.

[B]

Prime Minister Sanchez, welcome to the program. Let me ask you, you were one of the, you know, early recognizers of the Palestinians as a state, Palestinian statehood, how has it been going? You know, there's been a lot of backlash from the United States, from Israel.

[H]

Well, but there's a large majority of countries within the General assembly of the UN supporting to a solution. At the end of the day, I think that not only there is a mass to stop this war, there's a must for the access of humanitarian aid into Gaza, but there's also a must from politicians to give a political horizon to this crisis. And that means, in my view, that we need to recognize internationally the state of Palestine.

[B]

Can I just ask you, in terms of pragmatic steps as a world leader, how do you see this going? President Macron said it's part of a phased, hopefully, you know, path to a two state solution. What are the first steps?

[H]

So the first step in my view should be to have a peace international conference where we settle the conditions for this Palestine statehood, also the recognition by some Arab countries of the state of Israel and see whether we can find the way for a coexistence, a peaceful and security coexistence between Palestine and Israel and of course, the Middle East. You know, in my view, the biggest mistake that the Israeli government is committing is how, how to fight against terrorism. Of course, there's a security dimension of fighting against terrorism, but there are the two. First one, when you fight against terrorism, you have to do it within the legal framework. And this is not happening when it comes to Israel and what we are witnessing in Gaza and also in the West Bank. And last but not least, a political solution, politics, diplomacy. And that is why I think it's so important what happened last Monday when large majority of countries and also two permanent members of the Security Council, France and the UK recognized because now it's.

[B]

Four members of four permanent members. Only the US doesn't you talked about terrorism. So I assume you've seen an op ed and a column in the New York Times by Benny Gantz, former top politician in Israel. He said he spoke to you early in the war and he said you downplayed the danger Israel faced, saying Spain also faced terrorism. He says there's no symmetry between the threats. Both of your countries Face I covered the 2004 terrorist attack on Spain and others in Europe. So I want to know what your view on that criticism is.

[H]

But not only the jihadist terrorism, we suffered the BAS terrorism, ETA in Spain for 40 years. So we know quite well what does that mean to fight against terrorism. I think the big mistake is to call it war against terrorism because it's more complex than a war. Of course, as I said before, there's a security dimension of fighting against terrorism, but there's the political one. The thing here is how do we marginalize Hamas support within the Palestine society? And this is not happening today because there's only bombing from the Israeli government and without any kind of political dialogue with the moderates within the Palestine society, which by the way exist. And they, you know, just remember what President Habas said before the General Assembly. He was directly speaking to the Israeli people saying we want peace, we want the peaceful coexistence and we will guarantee also the security of Israel.

[B]

And just last question on this. What do you make of the criticism that this could be a reward for Hamas, that they could see that?

[C]

Not at all.

[H]

No, I don't see it. I mean, who says that? Who say that is people that they don't know what the implication is that you are recognizing a leverage to Hamas that. But it is not the case. So here what we are doing is strengthening also the moderates within Palestine society that are willing to open the doors for politics, diplomacy and to find a solution. The point here is that, I mean, let me say it in this way. Is it Israel today more secure than before the terrorist attacks? Isn't Israel more isolated than before the terrorist attacks? I think it does. It is more isolated, it is more insecure. And perhaps this is the plan for Prime Minister Netanyahu to create an unsecurity threat within the Israeli society that could explain what he's doing regarding not only Gaza, but also the occupation of, of the West. And this is something that we cannot accept at international level. And as you know, European leader, European Prime Minister, I can tell you I'm quite concerned about the implication when it comes to the global south because there are more and more countries saying, look, Europeans you ask us and we agreed upon for supporting Ukraine, but you're committing a double standards when it comes to what is happening in the Middle east and Palestine.

[A]

Let me move on to your reaction.

[B]

You were in the chamber when President Trump spoke on day one of this leaders summit. He essentially took on immigration and climate change. And he called, he said your nations are Going to hell those who bring in immigrants.

[H]

This is not the case of Spain.

[B]

So tell us.

[H]

So, I mean, I think it's well known that we have different views when it comes to climate change and migration. First of all, on migration, we are definitely, make no mistake with that. You know, we are definitely against smugglers and we're combating and fighting against irregular migration. But during the last seven years in Spain, we received 2 million migrants. And at the same time, we have reduced the unemployment rate by 40% and we are now, you know, growing. Last year 3.5%, this year 2.7%. So we are representing more or less 30% of the total economic growth of the European Union. And this is also. Thank you. Of, you know, this contribution of regular migration to the economic situation of Spain. And when it comes to the ecological transition, the green transition, the Spanish experience shows that when you, when you have more renewable sources in your enemy energy mix, you are capable to drop the electricity prices. In the case of Spain, since 2017, we have dropped the electricity prices by 50%. 50%. 5.

[B]

Oh, so when you say these results.

[H]

So these are facts, right?

[B]

So not many governments or not many people accept these facts, particularly on migrants. You know, it's become a hot button political issue. It's powering the far right. And there's lots of threats to your government, by vox, to the French government, by Frond Nacional, et cetera, Le Pen. How should governments like yours, who do have success stories, actually tell the people about them?

[H]

So, first of all, you know, showing that we are committed against and fight in the fight against irregular migration. And we have able to drop by 30% compared to last year irregular migration flows to Spain. But second, I think that we also need to show our citizens that we in the western societies, we're facing a demographic winter, which means that we are getting more and more old, older societies. And if we need to keep the economic momentum, we need to do two things. First of all, we need to implement family policies in order to increase natality rate, birth rates in our countries. And second, how do we incorporate migrants in order to have the labor force capable to keep the economic growth and therefore the welfare state, which is one of, you know, the treasures that we have in Spain and across Europe very quickly.

[B]

You have also stood up against President Trump's demands for 5% of GDP for NATO.

[A]

Why?

[H]

Because when we speak about alliance, it is important first of all to define what are the common threats that we face within NATO. And clearly we have one, which is Russia is neo imperialism. Let's say policy of Putin. And second, tell the allies what are the capabilities that you need to put in place in order to face those, you know, common challenges. So this is not a question of figures, it is a question of capabilities. And by the way, my government, because I've been in office since 2018, we have increased dramatically. The defense expenditure in Spain we received in the previous administration was 3.9% of our GDP when it comes to defense expenditure. And nowadays it's 2%.

[B]

I want to go back to your position on Israel and Gaza and what the solution is. Israeli media is reporting that on Prime Minister Netanyahu's journey here, here to New York today, his flight has avoided European airspace, including Spain's. Did you know this? What's your reaction?

[H]

I didn't know that. But I mean, let's say because I met Prime Minister Netanyahu two months later of these horrible and terrible terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas, I visited some kibbutz. I was with people. And I can tell you, you know, the Spanish society, the Spanish government, and of course, myself, we are committed with Israel. We want the best future for Israel. But what Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing is the opposite, is creating more unstable Middle east political situation. It is creating, you know, the seeds for potential terrorism in the future in the Middle east and also in that part of the Middle East. And this is something that is not acceptable for the region, for his society, and also for us. You know, we belong to a Mediterranean country, Spain with many others. And the situation that we're facing for the next decades is Middle east more unstable. And this is something that of course, geopolitically affects Spain and the southern flank of Europe. So that is why I'm asking Europeans to be more engaged and committed with the situation as well as we, we do when it comes to Ukraine.

[B]

There's a difficult situation building on with the flotilla that's coming towards Gaza. They're trying to with humanitarian supplies. Your country, and I believe Italy is sending military assets to try to protect it against any attack from Israel and.

[H]

Let'S hope not also to rescue them, just in case the Israeli forces attacked flotilla, which, by the way, you know, there are representatives of 45 countries, not only people, people, members of NGOs, but also politicians, MPs of different national parliaments. So let's hope that they can provide this humanitarian aid. And of course, something, I mean, let's hope that doesn't happen anything to these people. And of course, we will provide that safeguarding just in case they suffered any attack.

[B]

I mean, could it become a.

[H]

No, no, no, no. Confrontation between you and forces we will do is just to rescue our, you know, the members of the flotilla and just to provide that safety net.

[B]

Prime Minister Sanchez, thank you so much for joining us.

[H]

It's always a pleasure. Thank you very much.

[A]

And we'll be right back after this short break. And now the matter of weaponizing the American president. Trump is escalating his pressure on the Justice Department to go after his political opponents. And inside the doj, career prosecutors are reeling from ousters, resignations and relentless interference, they say. From the White House, Michelle Martin spoke with former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou to discuss how far this campaign could go. And a note, their conversation took place just before reports that prosecutors in Virginia are moving to indict the former FBI director, James Comey, who, who Trump considers his enemy.

[E]

Thanks, Christiane. Brendan Blue, thanks so much for joining us once again.

[F]

Thank you.

[E]

Just to remind you are a former federal prosecutor. You actually prosecuted cases from the January 6th attack. It's one of the reasons you left government, because of the way that things have transpired since. A number of people, analysts, people like yourself, people who understand how the Department of Justice has worked, is supposed to work, are calling this an extraordinary moment. Why are they saying that?

[F]

Well, we're watching the increasingly political nature of the Department of Justice and the collapse of the credibility of the Department of Justice. You know, the DOJ is unlike other agencies. It's not like NASA that has spaceships or Department of Defense that has, you know, tanks. The only thing the Justice Department has is its credibility. And to see so many attacks on that credibility so quickly, it's extraordinary. And I worry that the Justice Department that I knew may no longer exist or won't exist very soon.

[E]

Did you think it would be different? I mean, people might remember that the president initially, President Trump initially nominated a congressman, Matt Gaetz, to be the head of Justice Department. It became clear that that washe could not win confirmation. The current attorney general, Pam Bondi, is a prosecutor of experience. Did you think it would be different?

[F]

Maybe I was being overly optimistic or naive, but I thought that there would be at least two limits on this president's intervention in the Justice Department. The first related to January 6th, which is, you know, as soon as Donald Trump got reelected as president, you know, I assumed that some portion of the rioters would get pardoned. But, you know, Donald Trump campaigned on a pro cop agenda and I assume that that agenda would limit his decision to pardon, for instance, rioters that attack police officers. So I thought that that would be one way that Trump would be insulated or be contained. The other way is purely out of self interest, which is the Department of Justice only works if it's able to convince judges and juries to agree with it. And when DOJ becomes increasingly political or appears to become increasingly political, it loses that ability to persuade. And so at some level, I thought that the White House would want to keep some distance from doj solely that it's so that it could be more effective. But obviously that's not the case.

[E]

What are the sort of the data points that lead you to that conclusion?

[F]

Well, you know, you look at the appointment of obviously unqualified US Attorneys to various positions in the Eastern District of Virginia, in New Jersey. These people have literally no prosecutorial experience, but because of their personal connections to the President, they're getting these incredibly important jobs. You see it in the fact that certain kinds of crimes simply aren't being pursued anymore. You know, when you're talking about foreign bribery, when we're talking about acting as an agent of a foreign power, when you're talking about being a Russian kleptocrat, you know, these were things that the Department of Justice used to prosecute. No longer. And I think you see it in the fact that the president is explicitly calling out that he plans to or wants to prosecute his political enemies.

[E]

So there are two things that have been in the news. The first was you alluded to this. U.S. attorney Eric Siebert in Virginia refused to bring charges against Letitia James. She's the Attorney General of New York State. And James Comey, the former FBI director. Siebert resigned. He was clearly pressured to resign because he couldn't find reason to bring charges against Letitia James. And so then this weekend, President Trump posted on his social media platform.

[I]

Directly.

[E]

Addressing the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, saying, quote, nothing is being done. What about Comey? Adam Schiffy? Schiff, he's the current senator from California. Letitia. They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. No, I fired him. And there's a great case and we can't delay any longer. Justice must be served now in all caps with multiple sort of exclamation marks. So, gosh, how unusual is it for a president to be talking about demanding prosecutions of specific individuals?

[F]

It seems entirely unprecedented. I've certainly never heard of it. I've never heard of anybody that's heard of it. At one level, it's incredibly heartbreaking to see a post like that to see the President explicitly try to use the Justice Department as a weapon against his political foes a little bit more tactically. I think if you are the defense attorney for Tish James or Adam Schiff or James Comey, a post like that is incredibly helpful to your future defense. You know, one thing that defendants will often try to bring is a claim of what's called selective prosecution, this idea that the government is prosecuting you unfairly for an impermissible purpose. Now, the challenge with those sorts of claims typically is it's very hard to show the government's intent. Well, here the President just revealed the government's intent. So if the president's goal is to successfully prosecute his political enemies, I think he made that project harder for himself.

[E]

Well, the other thing is you mentioned defendants. He says that they're all guilty as hell, but he doesn't say of what exactly.

[F]

I mean, it's a defendant in search of a crime. It seems clear that he wants the Department of Justice to be an arm of a larger project of retribution. I think the one good sign here is you look at how grand juries are responding to these sorts of threats. You know, there's the old saw about that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. Well, at the District of Columbia, the U.S. attorney is really struggling to indict ham sandwiches. And, you know, a perhaps unprecedented set of cases has failed to secure indictments repeatedly. And so I think that these sorts of posts are both going to help defense attorneys, but they're also going to make grand juries more skeptical and make it harder for this administration to secure indictments in the first place.

[E]

You made the point about people taking positions in the Justice Department for which they are not qualified. But it is also the case, or at least don't have any prior experience. But it's also the case that there are lawyers leaving who have specific credentials. And to that end, I mean, the Public Integrity Section, which was tasked with prosecuting corruption, has been reportedly reduced from more than 30 attorneys to just two. And I wonder what that says to you about the kinds of crimes that will be prosecuted or even investigated.

[F]

I think the news that the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department is down to just two attorneys shows that certain kinds of crimes and certain kinds of criminals are beyond the reach of the law in this administration. I will add that, you know, when you're talking about an exodus of experience from the Department of Justice, one of the questions that I think every attorney in government needs to ask themselves right now, every employee in government needs to ask themselves right now is whether they can be more effective by staying or by leaving. You know, I think that there's always an argument that by staying in the Department of Justice or staying in government, you can stop the worst impulses of some of these political actors. But in a world where this administration is simply going to fire those who disagree with them, arguably by staying in government, you're simply adding your own credibility inadvertently to these highly political actions. And so it's a very tough decision. But I think everybody in government needs to be asking themselves how can they be most effective in maintaining the work, the dignity and the reputation of the government they work for?

[E]

You've said that this is, quote, a great time to be a rich criminal. What did you mean by that?

[F]

Well, it goes back to what this administration is choosing to prosecute and what this administration is choosing not to prosecute. It is choosing not to prosecute people that may have committed crimes. Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices act, which prohibits foreign bribery. Under the Foreign Agents Registration act, which prohibits acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign power, it's disbanded the klepto capture task force that was meant to go after Russian oligarchs. So, you know, in all these different ways, if you are a rich criminal in America, it is a fabulous time to be working right now.

[E]

Is it possible that a lot of people look at this and think, well, that's just the way it always worked, and it's just more obvious now that rich people, well connected people, there was one set of rules for them and that other people had different sets of rules. Is it possible that many people think that's just the way it's always been and this is just more obvious now? I don't know.

[F]

I can't speak to public polling data on this. And what people generally feel about the current way that the Justice Department is being used to go after political enemies and shield political friends. And I think that there's an argument to be made that corruption is a part, is an unfortunate part of American history. So I can't speak to whether or not there's a change here or a feeling that things are truly different. But again, this is maybe an opportunity for hope, which is if this is a continuation of of past corruption, it's occurring on such a vastly larger scale that it's hard for people to ignore. And when it's hard for people to ignore, maybe they're going to stand up and actually try to resist it. So at some level, this might be an opportunity to make Some big structural changes.

[E]

Why should people care about this? I mean, a lot of people might think this isn't going to affect me. So what would you say to somebody who felt that way?

[F]

A couple of things. So, one, even if you aren't particularly political, even if you aren't breaking the law, how the government treats people, how it treats both political friends and enemies, matters enormously. Because due process and civil rights either apply to everyone or they apply to no one. Because if certain people are excepted from due process, it means that the President is going to be the one who decides who gets rights and who gets treated fair. And we don't want that. So that's the first thing. The second thing is we are already starting to see this corruption infecting so many parts of every American's life. You know, you're watching the Jimmy Kimmel drama unfold right now. A lot of people watch Jimmy Kimmel. You're watching this happen in certain favored industries get protection. When you have crypto scammers paying $5 million to get their investigations by the government dropped, when you're seeing banks pay a million dollars to get their consent decrees lifted. You know, this kind of corruption affects every person, and it affects them every day.

[E]

How are you, I don't know, thinking about all this? I mean, you took an oath, right? You passed the bar. You took an oath to uphold the standards of your profession. You went to the Justice Department. You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. And there are a lot of people like you who thought they were doing justice. And I'm just wondering, how are you? How are you thinking about this? You've mentioned several times a sort of a sense of optimism. I'm just curious where that comes from.

[F]

Well, two things. One, you know, how am I feeling? How are my colleagues feeling? I can't speak for everybody, but it is obviously incredibly disheartening to watch the Justice Department be abused in this way and used as a political tool. You know, it's certainly the case that, you know, there are instances of corruption in the past, you know, from both parties, you know, from Watergate to, you know, Lyndon Johnson and beyond. This is qualitatively different. You don't have a history of a president pardoning rioters who attack police because they support him politically. You don't have instances of allegations of people accepting literal cash in paper bags and then staying in office. You don't have examples of a president with business dealings where foreign governments work with them or give them, literally, jets in order to get favored foreign policy so we're seeing things that are qualitatively different and on a massive scale. In terms of my optimism, what I think is because this corruption is happening on such a massive scale, it is increasingly hard for anybody to ignore. And in a world where the Department of Justice is not interested in prosecuting corruption and trying to build a fairer democracy, I think other institutions are going to step up. You know, if DOJ is not interested in prosecuting crypto scammers who pay to get their investigations dropped, well, competitors or consumers who are harmed by that behavior can sue in state and federal court to try to get justice. And so, again, I have a sense of optimism here because I think that people are increasingly engaged, and I think that engaged people have a lot of tools to take action here.

[E]

Brendan Ballou, thank you so much for speaking with us.

[F]

Thank you.

[A]

And finally tonight, on a week when President Trump blasts science and green energy, a science icon takes his place in the constellation of Hollywood greats. Emmy winning TV host and educator Bill Nye, known by many as the Science Guy, has been honored with a star on the Walk of Fame, marking a lifetime of inspiring minds across the globe and teaching us all sorts of knowledge along the way, from understanding the smallest molecules to tackling life's biggest questions. Back in 2017, he told me his thoughts on the climate crisis and why coming together at a time of divide is crucial for seeing progress.

[J]

The sooner we all start working together, the better. Instead of having conflict over this, let's get to work. There's three things we want for everybody in the world. We want clean water, renewably produced and reliable electricity and access to the Internet. If we can provide that to everybody in the world, we will be addressing climate change and preserving the quality of life for everyone on Earth. This is in everyone's best interest, coming.

[A]

Together truer even today than it was then. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all over social media. Thank you for watching and goodbye from New York.

[I]

This week on the Assignment with me, Audie Cornish. Jimmy Kimmel was back on air almost a week after ABC suspended his show over comments he made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. Kimmel's suspension ignited this fierce debate about free speech, political pressure, who gets to decide which voices stay on air? So how did we get here? What forces brought us to this moment where conservative leaders and billionaire media owners are reshaping the media landscape and what does that mean for you, the viewer? Listen to the assignment with me, Audie Cornish. Streaming now on your favorite podcast, apparently.